HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-09-13Approved by ILPC – 10/11/11
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – September 13, 2011
Present:
Susan Stein, Chair
Nancy Brcak
David Kramer
Susan Jones
Ed Finegan
Michael McGandy
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Megan Wilson, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Krin Flaherty, Staff
Phyllis Radke, Staff
Chair Susan Stein called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public
hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 100 W. Buffalo Street, Cayuga Apartments, DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal for
Repair and Alteration of Deteriorated Masonry Parapet Wall
Frost Travis and Chris Hyde, Ithaca Rentals, were present to address the Commission regarding the
proposal. F. Travis recapitulated the salient details of the project. He noted that after the catastrophic
failure of the parapet wall the Building Department informed the applicant that structural
reinforcements, in the form of angle braces placed behind the parapet and anchored through the roof,
would be required in order for the wall to be rebuilt to its original height. The applicant is concerned,
however, about the number of roof penetrations required to support this work and the impact of those
penetrations on the long-term performance of the roof surface. For this reason, the applicant proposes
rebuilding the wall at a slightly lower height to avoid the need for structural braces.
C. Hyde added that reducing the height of the parapet wall also allows for the re-use of many of its
bricks, which would otherwise have been extremely difficult to find acceptable substitutes for.
F. Travis concluded by noting that at the July 2011 ILPC meeting the applicant had asked the
Commission to postpone its consideration of the application until all of the Commission members could
be present.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by D. Kramer.
Chair Stein asked Commission members for any comments they may have and an indication of how they
would be inclined to vote on the project.
M. McGandy reiterated the substance of the comments he has made at previous meetings. He would
like to see a study demonstrating the impact on the building and the membrane roof of the new structural
system that would be required to support the wall at its full height. It seems to be fundamentally a
1 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
matter of cost, but M. McGandy would like to see a comparison of both options from an engineering
perspective. He added he is concerned with the aesthetic impact of the proposed changes, given the
importance and prominence of the building. He would really like the parapet to be retained at the
current height; so he would be inclined to vote against the proposal.
D. Kramer disagreed with M. McGandy. He does not see the height adjustment as a major concern. In
fact, given that the present parapet wall seems unusually high, it may even improve the aesthetic
appearance of the building.
E. Finegan expressed his agreement with the previous comment, noting the building should still look
well-balanced with a shorter parapet.
S. Jones indicated she would accept the proposed alterations, as well.
N. Brcak remarked that, although she disagrees with those Commission members who suggest the
changes would have no appreciable aesthetic impact on the building, she understands the exigencies
associated with the height reduction and could vote to approve it.
S. Stein expressed her support for the project.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Jones, seconded by E. Finegan.
WHEREAS, 100 West Buffalo Street, also known as the Cayuga Apartments, is located in the DeWitt
Park Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of
Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated 5/9/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Chris Hyde, representing TTH Assoc., LLC,
including the following: a narrative Description of Proposed Change(s); a narrative
Reasons for Change(s); a letter from Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers, PLLC,
dated May 5, 2011, with an attached drawing S1 Parapet Study, dated 4/29/11, showing
three repair options; three photocopied photographs, respectively showing (1) the existing
parapet, (2) total removal of the parapet, and (3) partial replacement of the parapet
reducing the height to 18” with reuse of the existing cap and of matching or existing
brick, 4) an e-mail from Chris Hyde, dated June 10, 2011, stating that the parapet would
be reduced from a height of 33 inches to 18 inches with reuse of the existing cap, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
100 West Buffalo Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves removal and partial replacement of the existing brick
parapet to a height of 18 inches (excluding capstone), which is 15 inches less than the
original 33 inch parapet height, and re-use of the existing capstone as described in the
2 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, as shown in the accompanying
photocopied photograph #2, as identified on the Elwyn & Palmer S1 Parapet Study, dated
4/29/11, as “Brick - Option 3,” and as stated in the e-mail from Chris Hyde, dated June
10, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts
of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
September 13, 2011, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is
identified as 1820–1930.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Cayuga
Apartments, a rectangular brick block with decorative motifs of the Colonial Revival and
Georgian Revival styles, was constructed in 1930.
As further indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the
Cayuga Apartments is architecturally significant for its association with local architect J.
Lakin Baldridge who, in addition to the Cayuga Apartments, designed many buildings of
the period including the Tompkins County Courthouse and the office building at 100
Seneca Street.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District,
architecturally significant as a representative example of the Colonial and Georgian
Revival styles, architecturally and historically significant for its association with local
architect of the period, J. Lakin Baldridge, and possessing a high level of architectural
integrity, the Cayuga Apartments is a contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic
District.
As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness Application, the purpose of the
proposal is to remove and replace the existing deteriorated parapet, altering the height
from 33 inches to 18 inches as shown in Option 3 on Elwyn & Palmer S1 Parapet Study
drawing, dated 4/29/11, and as modified in the e-mail from Chris Hyde, dated June 10,
2011.
3 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this
case specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
#6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and
where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated
by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
With respect to Standard #2, the existing parapet height of 33 inches was designed to be
in proportion with the size and mass of the building and, as such, is a feature that
characterizes the building. Reduction of the parapet height from 33 inches to 18 inches
will not have an adverse impact on the building’s historic character.
With respect to Standard #6, as documented in the letter from Elwyn & Palmer,
Consulting Engineers, PLLC, dated May 5, 2011, the severity of the deterioration
requires reconstruction of the parapet. As shown in the photocopied photograph #2,
accompanying the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, reducing the parapet
height from 33 inches to 18 inches does result in a new feature that matches the original
in design and other visual qualities, and be it further
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cayuga Apartments
and the DeWitt Park Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
4 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
RECORD OF VOTE: 4-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
S. Jones
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
No
M. McGandy
N. Brcak
Abstain
B. 210 N. Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Replace Exterior Door
S. Jones noted she is recusing herself from the deliberation and would not be voting on the project.
Rev. Philip W. Snyder, Rector, St. John’s Episcopal Church, recapitulated the salient details of the
project, noting that he believes the doors really need to be replaced. In use since the 1880s, they are
significantly warped, rotted in some places, and no longer function properly to secure the building.
Constructed of wood, the proposed replacement doors should be virtually indistinguishable from the
originals. P. Snyder added the current doors also represent both a security risk and a potential safety
risk.
D. Kramer noted he examined the doors himself and they seemed perfectly functional to him, albeit
split. It is not obvious to him why they would need to be replaced. P. Snyder responded that perhaps
the doors were functional at the time D. Kramer examined them, but he assured the Commission
members that they do in fact regularly function very poorly (and in addition to being split, also suffer
from rot).
Stephen Nash, Upscale Remodeling Corporation, added that Mary Arlin had indicated the doors had
been repaired several times, but they remain very difficult to open, at times. The replacement doors
would be constructed of an engineered wood core, with a veneer to simulate the appearance of a
traditional wood door, making them highly stable and durable. Repairing the doors would involve
considerable difficulty and may not guarantee that they are once again made fully functional.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Lloyd Hall, Warden, St. John’s Episcopal Church, remarked the doors are barely functional. He
believes they are seriously compromised, having seen extremely heavy usage over the years. Moreover,
in their current condition, the doors definitely represent a serious security concern for the church and can
be forced open far too easily.
Closure of Public Hearing
On a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair S. Stein closed the public hearing.
S. Stein asked if the new doors would look the same as the old ones, to which S. Nash replied, yes, that
they would look no different, except perhaps under close scrutiny.
5 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
M. McGandy asked if the glass would be re-used, to which S. Nash replied, no. Current building code
requires the use of tempered glass; however, the applicant would re-use most of the hardware. P. Snyder
also noted that some of the existing panes are Plexiglas, and several others have been replaced over the
years, so they are not all original.
D. Kramer asked if the original doors could be retained and stored for potential future use (possibly as
temporary security doors, should the new doors need to be removed for any reason), to which P. Snyder
replied, yes, it is a good idea and he would be willing to do that.
N. Brcak asked if the applicant had consulted a restoration carpenter, to which S. Nash replied that, yes,
Mary Arlin had done so. However, given that dismantling the doors would likely damage them further,
in their current condition, it was decided replacing them outright would be the simplest and most
desirable course of action.
N. Brcak then asked generally if the materials of the new doors would satisfy the standards, to which L.
Truame replied, given they are made of wood (even if it is laminated), yes, they would satisfy the
standards.
N. Brcak noted the Commission should also take a moment to discuss the mailbox portion of the
application. P. Snyder indicated the current mail slot was a later addition to the doors.
S. Stein asked if there were any additional questions or comments.
M. McGandy noted that, like D. Kramer, he would like to condition the approval of the application on
the retention and storage of the original doors for possible future use.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak.
WHEREAS, 210 North Cayuga Street, St. John’s Episcopal Church, is located in the DeWitt Park
Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of
Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 23, 2011, was submitted to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) by Mary I. Arlin on behalf of St. John’s Episcopal Church including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Change(s); (2) photocopied photographs of the existing exterior doors; (3) a
drawing of the proposed custom door; and (4) product specifications for a Salsbury Mail
House mailbox in white, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the photographs of St. John’s Episcopal Church taken in 1992
by John Auwaerter, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
6 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacement of the exterior doors of the parish house with
new 1¾” fir veneer over pine, TDL single-pane glass custom doors (existing door frame and
casing to remain) and the installation of a locked mailbox on the left entrance pillar, as stated
in the Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown in the drawing of the proposed door
and product specifications for the proposed mailbox, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ILPC is a Type II Action under the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September
13, 2011, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is 1820-
1930.
210 North Cayuga Street, St. John’s Episcopal Church, was constructed in 1860.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance, St. John’s Episcopal Church retains
sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance and is a contributing
element of the DeWitt Park Historic District.
As stated in the application’s narrative Reason for Change(s), and shown in the photocopied
photographs of the existing exterior doors, the purpose of the proposal is to replace the
deteriorated existing doors to improve functionality and energy efficiency.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standard:
7 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
#6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Standard #2, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s),
and shown in the photographs of the property, the exterior doors are historic features that
characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #6, as stated in the narrative Reasons for Change(s) and shown in
the accompanying photocopied photographs of the existing doors, the severity of
deterioration does require replacement. As shown in the drawing of the proposed doors, the
1¾” fir veneer over pine, TDL single-pane glass custom doors will match the old in design,
color, texture, materials, and other visual qualities.
With respect to Standard #9, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s),
#1, and shown in the product specifications for the Salsbury Mail House mailbox in white,
the installation of the new mailbox will not destroy historic features that characterize the
property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property.
With respect to Standard #10, the installation of the new mailbox will be undertaken in such
a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the property
would be unimpaired; and be it further
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the DeWitt Park Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
8 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
The original doors shall be removed and stored for potential re-use in the future.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
N. Brcak
E. Finegan
S. Stein
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
Special Note: S. Jones recused herself from deliberation and voting.
C. 512 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Install Aluminium “K”-Style
Gutters
Applicant J. Suzanne Routier-Pucci was present to address the Commission regarding the proposal. She
indicated she had consulted with two contractors who both advised her to use the “K”-style gutters, like
the ones already installed in the front of the house and around the porch. J. Routier-Pucci noted that the
house at 120 E. Buffalo St. also uses them. There seemed to be little reason not to use them; and the
house most certainly needs new gutters, one way or the other.
Having examined the house himself in person, D. Kramer confirmed the gutters have reached the end of
their lifespan. However, he was under the impression that half-round gutters have historically been
required by the Commission. L. Truame replied that, although required in the past, they have not been
required in every instance by the Commission recently. D. Kramer added that by accessing an aerial
internet view of the building he observed evidence the original guttering system had been internal.
S. Stein asked if the gutters would be painted to match the originals, to which J. Routier-Pucci replied
that, yes. She believes the gutters would appear entirely discreet in relation to the rest of the house. In
her opinion, they certainly appear to be appropriate on the 120 E. Buffalo Street house.
E. Finegan noted that the “K”-style gutters currently already installed on the porch of the house appear
to blend in quite well.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Jones, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Bojan Petek, contractor, remarked that he has installed the “K”-style gutters and gutter screens himself
and they have superior screening systems compared to the half-rounds. He added, however, that he
would not recommend painting the gutters, but that the installer should be able to obtain coil stock in the
color that would be needed.
Closure of Public Hearing
On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair S. Stein closed the public hearing.
9 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
N. Brcak noted that the resolution should refer to the fact that the “K”-style gutters do not match the
existing half-round gutters, but do match existing K-style gutters elsewhere on the building, and that the
original gutter system appears to have been internal.
RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 512 East Seneca Street is located within the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the
New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated 5/16/11, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Jeannine Suzanne Routier-Pucci,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2) three pages of a letter from Quality Seamless
Gutter Company, Inc., dated 4/21/11, describing the specifications of a New Seamless
Aluminum Rain Carrying System of gutters, a roof plan showing location of the proposed
gutters, and an e-mail from property owner Jeannine Suzanne Routier-Pucci and dated
6/8/11, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 512
East Seneca Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacement of the gutters on the main body of the house
with “K”-style gutters, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September
13, 2011; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932.
10 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 512 East Seneca
Street was constructed circa 1870-1873 and is architecturally significant as an outstanding
example of the Italianate style house.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District, and being an
outstanding example of the Italianate style, and possessing a high level of integrity, the
property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace deteriorated gutters with gutters that are better
integrated with the roof and match existing gutters located elsewhere on the building as
stated in the e-mail from Jeannine Suzanne Routier-Pucci, dated 6/8/11.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
#6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Standard #2, the existing half-round gutter is not a historic feature that
characterizes the property, as the building’s original gutter system appears to have been
internal.
With respect to Standard #6, as described in the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness, the severity of deterioration of the existing half-round gutter does require
its replacement.
11 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
With respect to Standard #6, while the proposed “K”-style gutter system does not match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where possible, materials, it does
match the existing “K”-style replacement gutters located elsewhere on the building.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed “K”-style gutter system can be removed in the
future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property or its
environment
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
M. McGandy
S. Jones
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
N. Brcak
No
Abstain
D. 115-117 N. Cayuga Street, Ithaca Masonic Temple, Local Landmark – Proposal for Interior
and Exterior Alterations
Applicant Steven A. VanDeWeert, Associate, with the firm of Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, was present to
address the Commission regarding the proposal. He noted the current owner has owned the building for
approximately 20 years. The applicant is asking for exterior changes to enable some desired changes in
the interior use of the building. The building’s interior configuration is such that it is only appropriate
for a limited number of uses. Several businesses, primarily nightclubs, located in the building have
subsequently failed. The applicant would like to modify both the interior and exterior of the existing
building, so that it could house a wider range of uses, potentially including residential uses. S.
VanDeWeert noted the Cayuga Street façade is the primary façade and the proposed changes would not
affect it. The intent of the changes is to allow more light into the interior space. The second floor
contains a double-height atrium, into which the applicant would like to insert an additional floor,
requiring the creation of new window openings and the extension of an existing stair.
S. Stein asked if any zoning appeals were associated with the work, to which S. VanDeWeert replied
that he does not know for certain, since the actual final use of the building has yet to be determined.
N. Brcak asked what would happen to the south façade, to which S. VanDeWeert replied there are no
plans to do anything with that wall/façade.
12 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
N. Brcak asked how the applicant could arrive at a decision on how to alter the space without knowing
what the ultimate use of the building is going to be, to which S. VanDeWeert replied they are trying to
change the building to maximize the options for the space, so that it would at least more closely match
the kinds of potential uses which might be envisioned and for which there may be some demand.
M. McGandy asked if skylights had been considered to allow more light into the interior, to which S.
VanDeWeert replied that this would still not bring light to the additional floor the applicant would like
to incorporate into the existing interior space, which is the only means of creating enough rentable space
to make the building more financially viable.
S. Stein indicated the Commission cannot address financial considerations at this time, as a part of the
application, which L. Truame corroborated, noting that the Commission can only consider the historical
and aesthetic appropriateness of the proposed exterior alterations, in this phase of the process.
D. Kramer remarked it seems a little premature for the applicant to be coming before the Commission at
this time, without better delineating the final outcome and proposed uses of the building. S. Stein noted
it is helpful, nonetheless, to have an applicant appear before the Commission for feedback at such an
early stage in the process. E. Finegan agreed with D. Kramer that it is probably premature for the
applicant to propose such a fundamental change to the façade, before identifying a specific use for the
building.
N. Brcak noted that the proposed changes definitely alter the fundamental character of the building. She
added that, despite the applicant’s characterization of the Cayuga Street façade as the primary façade,
the Seneca Street side is very large and very visible, and speaks to the building; and she does not believe
anything in the application satisfactorily justifies the proposed changes.
S. Jones agreed with N. Brcak, noting that the Seneca Street side is actually the most visible façade and
there would be no way of reversing the proposed changes in the future.
M. McGandy noted it is a commercial property, so it would be appropriate for the ILPC to consider the
economic nature of the property’s needs.
L. Truame reiterated that any economic considerations could be addressed as part of a separate hardship
appeal process, should the applicant choose to pursue that option.
M. McGandy noted the application definitely involves significant changes to the building. Although
they may end up being acceptable to the Commission, more information is needed.
N. Brcak noted that, if the application were to be considered a hardship issue, the Commission would
require a more detailed history of the building with detailed figures and economic information. She
asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to ask for a detailed rental history, to which L.
Truame replied that she believes so, but that she would need to check with the City Attorney.
S. VanDeWeert noted the applicant would be perfectly willing to provide that kind of information.
13 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no one to address the Commission, Chair S. Stein closed the public hearing, on a motion by S.
Jones, seconded by N. Brcak.
Special Note: An inadvertent error was made in how the Commission’s votes were recorded on the resolution below.
While Commission members voted “no” on the resolution, for the purpose of denying the Certificate of Appropriateness,
they should in fact have voted “yes” to the resolution, as it was written. The Commission subsequently reconsidered and
voted on the resolution at a 10/25/11 special meeting, denying the Certificate of Appropriateness.
RESOLUTION: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 115-117 North Cayuga Street, the Ithaca Masonic Temple, is a local landmark as designated
under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1994, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) by project architect Jagat P. Sharma on behalf of property owner Jason
Fane, including the following: (1) a memorandum to the ILPC, dated 7/15/11, describing
the existing conditions of the building and the proposed alterations; (2) proposed plans of
the basement, first floor, second floor, and third floor; (3) a drawing showing the existing
Seneca Street elevation; and (4) a drawing showing the proposed Seneca Street elevation, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 115-
117 North Cayuga Street, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the memorandum to the ILPC, dated 7/15/11, the proposed project involves:
(1) the construction of a new third story within existing two-story interior space; (2) the
extension of the east stair to the third floor to provide a second means of egress from the
third floor; (3) the installation of new windows at the second floor; and (4) the enlargement
of existing windows at the third floor to match the new second floor windows, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September
13, 2011; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
14 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
Completed in 1926, the Ithaca Masonic Temple is an excellent example of the Egyptian
Revival style of architecture as applied to a major public building. The Ithaca Masonic
Temple is one of only two buildings in the Egyptian Revival style in Ithaca. Features of the
building which are characteristic of the Egyptian Revival style include its overall massiveness,
limited fenestration, smooth surfaces and sheer walls, and battered decorative elements, such
as the main door surround. The building was designed by the locally prominent architectural
firm of Arthur Gibb and Ornan Waltz, and was one of their final and most ambitious
designs. The building is also historically significant as the first permanent home of Ithaca’s
Masonic order, an organization that was active in the area as early as 1818.
The purpose of the proposal is to change the current configuration of the building in order
to accommodate a broader range of uses, potentially including condominiums or a boutique
hotel.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal
of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With regard to Standard #2, the limited fenestration of the Seneca Street façade of the
Masonic temple is a historic feature that characterizes the property.
With regard to Standard #2, the insertion of five new window openings at the second story
level and enlargement of the five existing windows at the third story level on the Seneca
Street façade, as shown in the drawing on page 6 of the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness, will alter features that characterize the property.
15 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
With regard to Standard #9, the creation of new window openings at the second floor, and
the enlargement of existing window openings at the third floor to match the new second
floor windows will destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
With regard to Standard #9, the extension of the east stair to the third floor, as shown in the
drawing on page 6 of the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, will destroy historic
materials that characterize the property.
With regard to Standard #10, the creation of new window openings at the second floor; and
the enlargement of existing window openings at the third floor to match the new second
floor windows will not be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the property would be unimpaired;
With regard to Standard #10, the extension of the east stair to the third floor, as shown in
the drawing on page 6 of the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness, will not be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity
of the property would be unimpaired; and be it further
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the landmark, as set forth in
Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does not
meet criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 0-6-0
Yes
No
M. McGandy
N. Brcak
S. Stein
S. Jones
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
Abstain
E. 2 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Two Original
Casement Windows with Double-Hung Windows
Applicant Bojan Petek was present to address the Commission regarding the proposal. He noted he had
received ILPC approval of some work on the building approximately 1½ years ago, when the owner had
sought to replace a number of non-original windows. The applicant would now like to replace two
round-topped casement windows in the computer room. Even though technically visible to the public,
they would only be visible in extremely limited circumstances. The windows are currently very difficult
to operate and the room gets very cold in the winter, so it would be better to replace them with double-
paned windows. Such windows are not readily available with an arched top, so he is proposing to
16 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
replace that portion of the windows with a wood panel, approximating the appearance of some windows
in other locations on the building.
S. Stein asked how the current windows open, to which B. Petek replied that they originally featured
mechanical hardware for that purpose, but that it is now missing.
S. Stein indicated the windows appear to remain in good condition, to which B. Petek replied that they
are only single-paned windows, that the bottom portion of the sash is damaged on one, and that they do
not seal properly.
E. Finegan asked how many similar windows the building contains, to which B. Petek replied, a number
of them, but most of them are not operable. He added that an energy audit was performed last year,
which demonstrated that these windows make the rooms 10 degrees colder on average.
N. Brcak asked if the applicant looked into repairing them. B. Petek remarked that part of the sash on
one of them is missing, so it would have to be in-filled, which could theoretically be done. However,
the windows would remain single-pane windows, so the benefit of repairing them would be limited.
N. Brcak asked why storm windows could not be installed. B. Petek indicated that this could be done,
but that the seal would probably remain ineffective.
B. Petek reiterated he would be hard-pressed to say that anyone can see the windows from the street,
given that they are deeply-set shaded windows, and are not reachable by any path or other conventional
means.
S. Stein indicated she is not convinced the new windows are necessary, since they do not appear
particularly damaged. She asked if Commission members might examine them in person, to which B.
Petek replied, yes, he would be glad to show them.
In that case, S. Stein remarked the Commission would defer further deliberation until after the site visit.
N. Brcak noted the Commission definitely needs more information before making a decision, such as a
detailed comparison of repair vs. replacement of the windows.
L. Truame indicated she would make the site visit arrangements, in coordination with the applicant.
S. Stein thanked the applicant for his time.
F. Sibley Hall, Arts Quad Historic District – Proposal for Ventilation Changes
Applicant Branden Farnsworth-Weinblatt, LaBella Associates, P.C., and Peter Turner, Assistant Dean of
the College of Architecture, Cornell University, were present to address the Commission regarding the
proposal.
P. Turner indicated he has appeared before the Commission on multiple occasions. The proposal is
essentially a mechanical ventilation project, intended to replace old ventilation units with a new system.
17 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
The visible aspect of this work involves the replacement of several existing windows with louvers and
the replacement of several existing louvers with windows. At this time, the applicant is only seeking
ILPC approval for the overarching strategy, not the details and specifications of the project, which
would be submitted at a later date. The proposed windows would match all the other windows in the
building.
N. Brcak thanked the applicant for such a thorough application and noted she does not believe the
proposed changes would make any appreciable difference to the building’s appearance.
S. Stein asked what the purpose of the changes to the Green Dragon was, to which B. Farnsworth-
Weinblatt replied that they are looking into ventilation hood options, to avoid ‘greasing’ the side of the
building. P. Turner added that the Green Dragon does not currently have a kitchen, but that the duct
work and exhaust were planned, in case a kitchen should ever need to be installed.
B. Farnsworth-Weinblatt noted that location number seven in the drawings shows where an exhaust fan
would be installed, behind the Green Dragon, in which a louver could be installed. Future mock-ups
would be submitted to the Commission for approval.
S. Stein asked if any windows in storage could be used, to which B. Farnsworth-Weinblatt replied that
they could certainly attempt to do so, but that there were some issues with some of the windows.
Certainly, at the very least, however, the stored windows could be used as models for the new.
Public Hearing
On a motion by E. Finegan, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no one to address the Commission, Chair S. Stein closed the public hearing, on a motion by D.
Kramer, seconded by S. Jones.
D. Kramer asked if the new ventilation system would make the current air-conditioning units obsolete,
to which B. Farnsworth-Weinblatt replied, no, but that the applicant would at least be removing some of
the larger ventilation units. P. Turner added that the intent is to remove the air-conditioning units
incrementally.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, Sibley Hall is located in the Arts Quad Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3
and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 29, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Branden Farnsworth-Weinblatt of LaBella Associates
on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) a narrative
description of the project titled Scope of Project/Proposed Modifications; (2) two additional
narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s);
(3) Appendix A: Floor Plans showing demolition plans for the basement (M0.00), first floor
(M0.01), second floor (M0.02), third floor (M0.03) and attic (M0.04); (4) Appendix B:
Building Elevations, including the south elevation and the north elevation; and (5) Appendix
C: Photo-Renderings of Proposed Modifications (Before & After), and
18 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
Sibley Hall, and the City of Ithaca’s Arts Quad Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated August 29, 2011, the
proposed project involves ventilation changes to East and Center Sibley, including: removal
of two windows at Basement Room 39 and replacement with ventilation louvers; removal of
four windows at Basement Room 65 and replacement with ventilation louvers; removal of
multiple ventilation units and intake louvers previously retrofitted into window openings and
the reinstallation of windows in those locations; removal of mechanical louvers facing
Millstein Hall and replacement with windows utilizing two-hour glass as required by fire
code; installation of new exhaust louvers in six existing window openings around the Center
Sibley dome cupola; removal of one louver previously installed in the Center Sibley dome
cupola and its replacement with a window that matches the existing windows; and
installation of a side wall duct termination for exhaust and future kitchen exhaust for the
Green Dragon.
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on September
13, 2011; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Arts Quad Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the Arts quad Historic District is 1868-
1919.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, Sibley Hall was
originally constructed in 1870 and received additions in 1881, 1884, 1894, and 1902. The
original building was designed by Archimedes Russell with later additions by Arthur N. Gibb
(Sibley Dome) and Charles F. Osborne (East Sibley Hall).
Constructed within the period of significance of the district and possessing a high level of
integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Arts Quad Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to upgrade the existing ventilation system to comply with the
New York State Mechanical Code and improve overall air quality.
19 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal
of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Standard #2, the two window sash at Basement Room 39, four window sash
at Basement Room 65, and six window sash around the Center Sibley dome cupola are
historic features that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #2, the multiple ventilation units and intake louvers previously
retrofitted into window openings, the mechanical louvers facing Millstein Hall, and the
louver previously installed in the Center Sibley dome cupola are not historic features that
characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #9, the replacement with ventilation louvers of the existing
window sash at Basement Room 39, Basement Room 65, and in the Center Sibley dome
cupola; and the creation of a new duct termination for future ventilation needs at the Green
Dragon; and the replacement with new custom wood window sash of multiple existing
ventilation louvers previously retrofitted into window openings, the mechanical louvers
facing Millstein Hall, and the louver previously installed in the Center Sibley dome cupola
will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property and will result in new work
that is differentiated from the old and compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the replacement with ventilation louvers of the existing
window sash at Basement Room 39, Basement Room 65, and in the Center Sibley dome
cupola; and the creation of a new duct termination for future ventilation needs at the Green
20 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
Dragon; and the replacement with new custom wood window sash of multiple existing
ventilation louvers previously retrofitted into window openings, the mechanical louvers
facing Millstein Hall, and the louver previously installed in the Center Sibley dome cupola
will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Arts Quad Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the
following condition:
The applicant will return before the ILPC and provide further detailed specifications
regarding the proposed alterations, once they have been identified.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
S. Stein
S. Jones
N. Brcak
E. Finegan
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Administrative Matters
None.
B. Public Comments on Matters of Interest
S. Stein read the Common Council Rules of Order aloud to the meeting attendees.
210 Kelvin Place:
Isaac Kramnick, 125 Kelvin Place, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. A Cornell
Heights resident of 40 years, he remarked that the Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Significance Statement specifically characterizes the neighborhood as a “residential suburban
development,” with a “strictly residential character.” I. Kramnick then quoted from the Building
Commissioner’s September 6, 2011 letter to Lee Adler:
21 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
“Whether the occupants of 210 Kelvin Place visit the facilities known as Bridges I and
Bridges II, or whether someone brings meals to the occupants at 210 Kelvin Place, or
purchases their medicine does not mean, in terms of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance and the
New York State Building Code, the occupancy use of 210 Kelvin Place is now changed to
a commercial use or even somehow considered as an accessory use to Bridges I and II.”
I. Kramnick remarked that, regardless of the Building Commissioner’s contention that the
proposed use would remain residential, visitors to 210 Kelvin Place bringing meals or medicine
to the occupants could not be considered residential visitors in any way. I. Kramnick remarked
that any Bridges staff delivering goods and services to 210 Kelvin Place represent a commercial
infraction on the property. He urged the Commission to postpone its vote until the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) has had the opportunity to rule on the appeal.
Catherine Penner, 121 Kelvin Place and neighborhood resident of 26 years, spoke in opposition
to the project. She conceded that the applicant’s proposal is both well-structured and functional
and noted that Bridges I was a good project. Moreover, the care of both the building and the
grounds has been exceptional. The Bridges II building, on the other hand, is out-of-scale
compared to its environs, although even that building is tolerable. However, the current proposal
for a third building would create yet another business-owned property in a district not zoned for
commerce. C. Penner observed that multiple adjoining Bridges properties could not easily be
converted back to individual residential use in the future. Were the City to approve the project,
she would feel the relationship between Cornell Heights residents and the City would have been
irrevocably altered for the worse. Finally, C. Penner stressed she bears no personal bias against
the elderly or anyone in need of assisted-living services, as had been suggested at the July 2011
Commission meeting.
Susan Robey, 209 Wait Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project on behalf of 212 Kelvin
Place resident, Lee Adler. The current City Code charges the ILPC with considering changes in
use as part of Commission’s purview, in so far as it defines a Certificate of Appropriateness as a
“document evidencing approval by the Landmarks Preservation Commission of a proposal to
make a material change of use or appearance […].” S. Robey remarked that the project
represents a change in use from a single-family residence to a multi-family residence, as well as
a commercial office. Moreover, all of the changes associated with Bridges I, II, and the
proposed new project would essentially create a commercial agglomeration of buildings that
would fundamentally alter the primarily private residential nature of the neighborhood and
constitute a “substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic […] significance and value of the
district.”
Eric Pritz, 106 Brook Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. He expressed dismay that it
appears the project is all but ready-to-go and seems likely to be approved by the Commission,
which he does not understand, given the project’s commercial nature and its use of such elements
as double-hung windows. He encouraged the Commission to stand up for historic preservation
by denying the application.
Vally Kovary, 101 Brook Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. She affirmed what had
already been said by her neighbors. She went on to note that it has been her experience that the
22 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
applicant simply ends up doing what it wants with its properties, paying very little attention to
the impact on the neighborhood. She contended that the applicant originally promised not to
make any changes that would unnecessarily set the Bridges buildings apart from the rest of the
neighborhood, but went ahead and did so nonetheless. V. Kovary stressed that the project would
only serve to further consolidate the Bridges as a commercial enterprise, in what is primarily a
residential neighborhood.
Susan Hess, 123 Heights Court, spoke in opposition to the project. She remarked that Cayuga
Heights is a residential community, not a commercial one. She also noted that the use of the
proposed building would have a fundamental impact on the historical and aesthetic character of
the neighborhood.
Alison Cares Pritz, 106 Brook Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. She noted she
originally voiced some objections to the very first Bridges building and had been assured that
certain birch trees would be preserved, which never happened. A. Pritz observed that, even after
numerous personal interactions with the applicant Elizabeth Ambrose over the years, Ms.
Ambrose still did not appear to recognize her, which A. Pritz believes illustrates the absence of a
meaningful relationship between the applicant and the rest of the community.
Jill Burlington, 110 Heights Court, spoke in support of the project, and read into the record
a letter in support of the project signed by Michael Kimball, Christine Carroll Kimball, Peg
O’Neill Kimball and Peter Sarkus. This letter is on file in the Planning Department and
available for review upon request.
Installation of Fall Creek Drive Guard Rail & Fencing:
Ken Vineberg, 122 Roberts Place, spoke in opposition to the project, summarizing the major
points of a letter he provided to the Commission on 9/10/11. This letter is on file in the Planning
Department and available for review upon request.
Kosake Onishi, 216 Fall Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to the project, noting he frequently
walks along Fall Creek Drive. Cars routinely speed down the road and there was very little room
for pedestrians to navigate, even before the guard rail installation. The new guard rail takes up
about 3 feet of additional space, which makes that stretch of road all the less safe for pedestrians.
Moreover, the guard rail detracts from the aesthetic and historic character of the neighborhood.
K. Onishi added that residents are not the only ones who use the road: it is a distinctive area of
the city that appeals to both residents and non-residents alike.
Bob Mrazek, 216 Fall Creek Drive, spoke in opposition to the project, summarizing the major
points of a letter signed by Bob Mrazek, Carolyn Mrazek, Waleter La Feber and Sandra La Feber
and provided to the Commission on 9/12/11. This letter is on file in the Planning Department
and available for review upon request.
Susan Lewis, 106 Highland Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, noting that Fall Creek
Drive is a beloved haunt of hers and the stone wall is very important to her. She appreciates the
safety considerations that prompted the installation of the guard rail, but she hopes the City can
23 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
find a reasonable alternative. The guard rail ruins the beautiful view over the gorge, which has
been a frequent stop for her when she has hosted out-of-town visitors. S. Lewis recounted her
initial shock when she saw the guard rail for the first time and stated that it would be a travesty if
a fence were also erected.
C. Communications
1. Report to the Department of Public Works – Installation of Guard Rail and Fencing on
Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District
Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works, and Ray Benjamin, Assistant Superintendent for
Public Works, were present to address the Commission about the project. (B. Gray distributed
some handouts, containing various detailed photographs of the site.)
R. Benjamin recapitulated the origin and salient details of the work that has been done to date.
In February 2011, the stone wall at the east end of Fall Creek Drive along the edge of the gorge
tipped over on its own. City staff inspected its remains and then erected temporary concrete
Jersey barriers; however, pedestrians could still too easily walk behind the barriers in some
dangerous areas. In August 2011, the City removed the temporary barriers and started to install
permanent guard rails instead.
R. Benjamin noted the stone wall is not stable and the mortar has clearly deteriorated. Cornell
University and the City collaborated on the project when it became clear Cornell would have to
infringe upon the City’s right-of-way to continue erection of the chain-link fence they were
installing in this area. Cornell’s contractor drilled the holes into which the guard rail posts were
inserted, avoiding the need for additional holes that might have further jeopardized the stability
of the gorge edge. R. Benjamin noted that a wrought-iron fence that had also lined the edge of
the road in this area had fallen away some time ago. The principal motivation behind the
construction of the guard rail was a safety-related one, especially given that this stretch of road is
highly trafficked.
R. Benjamin noted that given its date of construction there were never any required
specifications for the original wall, but any new wall that might be constructed would need to be
an approved Department of Transportation barrier system. The existing wall could not simply be
rebuilt using the original method of construction.
R. Benjamin noted that the majority of the fencing is being installed in the public right-of-way
and would generally be considered to be part of the City’s improvement.
N. Brcak asked why the wall is not grandfathered, to which B. Gray replied that it would be, but
only if it were stable. Neither the wall itself nor the ground beneath it is stable. It is theoretically
possible to have constructed a large concrete wall with stone facing which would meet DoT
requirements to replace the existing wall, but not in time to address the safety concerns.
E. Finegan asked why a six-foot fence was decided on, rather than, say, a four-foot fence. B.
Gray replied that the City is not in a position to make any statements about the fence itself.
24 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
S. Stein asked why the fence extends so far, to which R. Benjamin replied that it is also intended
to cover the unstable sections of the wall. S. Stein indicated she would like to see a report
regarding the deterioration of the wall.
R. Benjamin noted that the mortar throughout most of the wall is seriously compromised, likely
as a result of frost heaves over the years, and that there are two places where someone stepping
over the wall could easily fall into the gorge.
D. Kramer asked if completion of the fence could be postponed until another solution could be
identified. B. Gray responded that if the City had re-built the wall to meet current standards, the
project would have been an entirely different installation. Additional measures would probably
have had to be taken to accommodate this approach, such as making the road a one-lane road.
Currently, there is simply too little space for anything other than what has been constructed.
E. McCollister asked whose safety was being considered in the construction of the guard rail; she
asked, also, who the chain-link fence belongs to. B. Gray replied it is Cornell’s chain-link fence.
E. McCollister asked who gave Cornell permission to construct it, to which R. Benjamin replied
simply that all he knows is that Cornell has been in the process of installing it.
E. McCollister asked if it was motorists whose safety was principally being considered with the
installation of the guardrail, to which R. Benjamin replied, yes.
M. McGandy asked if the Jersey barriers could not have served the same purpose as the guard
rail, to which B. Gray replied that certainly Jersey barriers can be made to be permanent, in
certain circumstances. M. McGandy noted that even if they were not installed on a permanent
basis, the barriers could have served as a temporary measure to provide the City more time to
create a satisfactory permanent solution.
L. Truame asked if the City Attorney knew whether the Cornell fence was properly considered
part of the City Improvement or should have been submitted for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
to which Krin Flaherty replied that she could not provide a complete satisfactory answer at this
time, given that the City and Cornell have essentially been playing the role of partners in this
project, so the answer is not as clear as it would ordinarily be. She or the City Attorney will
provide the Commission with a more satisfactory response at a later date.
B. Gray indicated he regrets he was not aware of any requirement to obtain the Commission’s
approval for work on the site. He added, however, that given the safety considerations
associated with the collapse of the wall, a certain degree of urgency existed.
The draft ILPC Report to the Department of Public Works was read into the record.
S. Stein indicated she resides at 310 Fall Creek Drive and has a particular interest in the project;
however, she is not aware of any reason to recuse herself from the discussion at this time. She
remarked that she objects to the wording of the report in its current form; it is not worded
strongly enough. S. Stein noted the report should stress that all parties should respect the
25 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
process, and also suggested the word “permanent” be removed where it is used to reference the
newly installed guard rail.
D. Kramer noted that he supports inclusion of the stronger language about following the process.
M. McGandy added that the stone wall could most likely be considered a contributing element to
the historic district.
N. Brcak indicated her agreement with the past few comments, although she also acknowledged
the need for sensitivity to public safety considerations. She recommended elimination of the last
bullet of the report.
D. Kramer indicated the fifth bullet should either be reworded or removed (“Members of the
ILPC differ in their assessment of the severity of this visual impact […].”), given the apparent
general consensus among Commission members that seems to have emerged.
M. Wilson remarked that Cornell has exhibited some flexibility regarding the fence’s height.
Forty-two inches had been based on the recommendation of the Building Department, but
Cornell seemed open to other options.
N. Brcak remarked the project seems to be putting pedestrians at some risk.
S. Jones agreed with removing the last bullet and adding the language about following the
process. She asked for confirmation that the Commission is merely being asked to make a
recommendation, to which L. Truame replied, yes, that is all the Commission is empowered to
do. It does not have the authority to prohibit further work by the DPW at the site or to require
removal of the City’s completed work.
M. Wilson indicated that in her experience, in similar situations in the past, these kinds of
projects in which fencing has been incorporated into guard railing have been considered to be
City work, according to the Building Department.
N. Brcak stressed that the situation begs for more frequent and effective communication between
various City departments and committees.
L. Truame indicated she would edit the report in response to the comments that had been made
today and re-submit it to the Commission for further review and finalization.
III. MINUTES
(no prior draft minutes were reviewed and approved)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. 210 Kelvin Place, Cornell Heights Historic District – proposal for renovations and an
addition
26 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
Jim Salk, Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP, Paula Horrigan, Landscape Architect, and
John Page, 2011 Bero Architecture, PLLC, were present to address the Commission about the
project.
Indicating he is owner Elizabeth Ambrose’s legal counsel, J. Salk remarked that only a few
historic preservation guidelines exist to guide the Commission and the applicant in their review
of this matter, but the existing related case law affirms the Commission can only concern itself
with the external aspects of the project which have a direct impact on the public view, and not
any issues relating to the use of the building. Moreover, J. Salk remarked, the proposed project
should not be considered to fall within the definition of “commercial use,” given that it merely
entails the conversion of a one-family dwelling into a multiple-family dwelling. J. Salk
encouraged the Commission to make a favorable determination.
P. Horrigan presented an overview of the landscape plan and associated drawings. She noted
that 210 Kelvin Place was constructed at the very end of the period of historical significance for
the historic district and lies at its northernmost edge. She added that the district features a wide
variety of kinds and sizes of houses, with an equally wide variety of lot sizes and configurations.
She emphasized that all the architectural and landscape-related alterations to the property
conform to the character and topography of the neighborhood, as well as the modest nature of the
original building.
J. Page indicated that both the original application and the revised materials presented to the
Commission illustrate the exceeding degree of care given to the project. He stressed that the
addition sits at the rear of the property, uses the same architectural vocabulary as the original
house, and is not visible from the street. Furthermore, the addition and the accompanying
landscaping would enhance both the use and appearance of the property as a whole, with such
elements as porches and other simple vernacular elements of the period in question. J. Page
added that the expanded site elevations shown to the Commission also exhibit the extent to
which the addition has been differentiated from the original house.
S. Stein asked what had been changed to the application since the July 12, 2011 ILPC meeting,
to which J. Page replied it is the amount of detail provided that has changed. Nothing has
changed in terms of the size, design, massing, or other details of the proposal.
D. Kramer indicated that, since he was not present at the initial meeting, it would be helpful if
the major concerns associated with the project could be recapitulated.
S. Stein remarked that she remembers the massing of the addition vs. that of the original house to
have been a major subject of concern. To this, N. Brcak added that the change in the orientation
of the building with respect to the street was another concern, in addition to the disproportionate
scale of the addition.
J. Salk noted he believes the newly submitted illustrative maps show that the massing is, in fact,
in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, characterized as it is by a wide variety of different-
sized buildings. He added that the external street view of the property would remain unchanged.
27 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
N. Brcak stressed that the Commission is not restricted to considering merely the street view of a
given project.
J. Page remarked he believes the applicant has met the challenges of making the alterations to the
site compatible with historic preservation standards and the characteristics of the neighborhood.
As Vice Chair of the Brighton Historic Preservation Commission himself, he noted he is acutely
aware of the kinds of issues being considered and he does not believe the footprint of the
addition could be characterized as a “deal breaker.”
M. McGandy noted he is genuinely impressed with what has been done with the project;
however, he believes the issue of scale remains a valid concern.
J. Salk remarked it is also important to note that the addition is situated below the original house;
and he added that zoning would in fact have permitted a significantly larger addition.
D. Kramer noted that earlier in the meeting one of the opposing neighbors had asked the
Commission to wait until the project had gone before the BZA before making its own
determination. D. Kramer asked for formal guidance on whether this would be an acceptable
course of action for the Commission. L. Truame responded that the issue of whether a zoning
variance would or would not be required should not affect the Commission’s decision.
N. Brcak noted that another major concern is whether the addition has been sufficiently
differentiated from the original house. In her opinion, it simply appears to be an approximation
of the old that is not differentiated enough from the original.
Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke indicated that no building permit has been received from
the applicant, so there is currently no established timeframe within which the BZA would be
reviewing the project; and she herself does not have the authority to take any particular action in
the matter. If a zoning appeal is made, given the nature of the project, it would most likely be a
ministerial or administrative decision. The Building Department is required, however, to adhere
to any ILPC decision on the project and it would also be required to examine the zoning
ordinance for guidance. P. Radke noted the project involves a multi-family dwelling, so it would
not be considered a commercial property. Since the proposed use complies with current zoning
requirements, the only zoning restriction would be to limit the occupancy to a maximum of six
unrelated people. Nothing associated with the project, in terms of height, setback, size, massing,
etc., would require a variance.
D. Kramer indicated that the Building Commissioner’s statements would seem to suggest, in that
case, that there is no reason for the Commission to postpone a decision in the matter.
M. McGandy asked for formal guidance on whether the proposed use of a given project should
or should not be a factor in the Commission’s determination. L. Truame replied by reading
Section 228-4 D of the City Code which does appear to include use in the Commission’s charge.
28 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
M. McGandy noted it seems disingenuous to treat the project as a single discrete building, when
it is in fact a component of a larger enterprise. He remarked there does appear to be a kind of
multiplier effect associated with the addition, in terms of its impact on the surrounding
neighborhood. Having said this, he reiterated the extent to which he is impressed with the design
of the building and the landscaping. He would be more inclined to support the project if he did
not sense that the wider neighborhood risks being fundamentally altered in some way.
J. Salk remarked it is important to note that the proposed addition should not be considered
“Bridges III.” It would be a duplex, established by contract with the Bridges directly with Dick
Hughes and the other unit would simply be rented out.
P. Radke noted that, even if the property’s residents were to receive their meals and other
services from the Bridges, the proposed project would remain a residential, and not a
commercial, use.
M. McGandy asked if assisted-living facilities are defined by the use of a building or its physical
characteristics, to which P. Radke replied it is defined by state licensing rules. J. Salk interjected
to clarify that the proposed project is not an assisted living facility.
S. Stein suggested Commission members indicate how they would be inclined to vote, at this
time.
M. McGandy noted that because he believes there may be a conflict between the spirit and the
letter of the law in this case, he would be inclined to abstain from voting.
D. Kramer indicated he is also conflicted. Although the project’s massing seems outsized, he
believes it is a very good design, so he would grudgingly be inclined to vote for approval.
E. Finegan noted he would be inclined to take the property’s relationship to the Bridges entirely
out of the picture and simply examine the design of the building. He indicated he would support
the proposal, with the understanding it would go before the BZA, if required, for a separate
consideration of use.
S. Jones indicated she had originally been concerned about the size of the building. At this point,
however, having re-examined the proposal in depth, she is considerably less concerned and
believes it would be compatible. She would be willing to support the project.
N. Brcak noted that she continues to have serious concerns about the project and with the issue
of differentiation, in particular. She believes the proposed building would be outsized, if not
overwhelming, in comparison to the modest nature of the original structure. As a result, she does
not believe it would meet Standard #9.
S. Stein remarked she is also conflicted and still does not believe the massing is compatible.
Moreover, she does not understand why no effort was made to reduce the scale of the addition.
She would be inclined vote no.
29 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
L. Truame indicated that the project would not be approved, given the straw vote tally. At this
time, the Commission should either agree not to act or proceed to vote on the matter.
N. Brcak noted that, when the initial review of the project was deferred, she had understood that
the applicant would be making some changes to the substantive details of the proposal, which
does not seem to have occurred.
M. Wilson noted that, while further postponement of the project is an option, there would need to
be mutual agreement for an additional extension. Furthermore, if the project were ultimately
denied, it could only be reconsidered by the Commission if it were fundamentally altered by the
applicant.
M. McGandy asked for formal guidance on whether his abstention is legally or procedurally
appropriate, to which M. Wilson replied she believed it was appropriate, although the
Commission may certainly seek further corroboration.
J. Salk asked if the applicant could be provided with a written list of detailed concerns needing to
be addressed, if the review of the project were deferred. He has heard concerns expressed
regarding both the differentiation and the massing/size of the building; but, for example, he
would be interested in hearing a specific numerical reference to how much the massing/size
should be reduced.
P. Horrigan cautioned that the project could most likely not be reduced too much from its current
size, if it is to retain its current integrity.
N. Brcak noted that the addition appears to double the size of the original structure and she does
not understand why it needs to be so large. J. Salk replied it is ultimately a factor of how viable
the project would be. Too much of a reduction in size would make the project far less
economically feasible for the applicant to consider and perhaps the application should be
considered in the context of an economic hardship request. L. Truame noted the Commission
could not consider the issue of economic hardship at this time, in this phase of the process.
S. Stein reiterated her concern with the massing of the building and stressed she would be more
likely to approve a smaller proposal, perhaps designed for fewer residents.
M. McGandy indicated he remains quite uncertain about the project and its potential impact on
the fabric of the neighborhood. Regarding the actual design of the project, he added, the addition
possesses a certain degree of grandness that is not consistent with the original building.
N. Brcak agreed, reiterating her concern that the addition is outsized for what was originally a
modest house and it does not seem differentiated enough.
S. Jones noted that in examining the elevations the addition definitely does not appear
differentiated from the original.
30 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
N. Brcak indicated that, if she were to try and quantify how much of a reduction in size might
satisfy her concerns, she would probably say it should be reduced to approximately ⅓ of its
current size.
E. Ambrose remarked it is important for the applicant to get a precise understanding of the
changes that are being sought by the opposing Commission members. She stressed that she
could not in good faith consider reducing the size of the project by too great an extent. She is
particularly constrained by the need for a first floor that is of a certain minimum size, given that
the prospective residents will most likely require single-floor living arrangements and she cannot
reduce the size of the bedrooms too much, or no one would want to live there. At this time, E.
Ambrose indicated she would respectfully request a formal vote on the project.
M. McGandy indicated that, given the remaining uncertainty about the appropriateness of his
initial inclination to abstain from voting, he would prefer not to subject the Commission to any
further complications associated with the application and indicated he would grudgingly vote
approval.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 210 Kelvin Place is located in the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated in
1989 under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated 6/24/11, was submitted to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) by project architect John Page of Bero Architecture on behalf of property
owner, Elizabeth Ambrose, including the following: (1) a letter, dated June 24, 2011, from architect
John Page of Bero Architecture PLLC; (2) a document, dated June 24, 2011, with Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s), both in outline format; (3) architectural drawings,
titled Proposed Renovations & Addition, dated June 24, 2011, including: Boundary & Topographic
Survey (6/8/11); SK-01, Site Plan; SK-20, East Elevation – Kelvin Place; SK-21, South Elevation;
SK-21.a, South Elevation – Full; SK-22, North Elevation; SK-22.a, North Elevation – Full; SK-23,
West Elevation; and
WHEREAS, additional application materials were submitted to the ILPC, including the following:
(1) a letter, dated September 5, 2011, from architect John Page of Bero Architecture PLLC; (2) a
project Executive Summary; (3) an excerpt from A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee
McAlester, describing the identifying features and principal subtypes of the Colonial Revival style;
(4) six photographs of 210 Kelvin Place and other Colonial Revival buildings; (5) architectural
drawings, dated September 7, 2011, including: SK-20, East (Front) Elevation; SK-22, North
Elevation; SK-21, South Elevation; SK-23, West (Rear) Elevation; SK-22.b, North Elevation
Massing Study; SK-21.b, South Elevation Massing Study; and (6) a Garden Site Plan, produced by
Paula Horrigan, Landscape Architect.
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 210 Kelvin Place, the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and
a letter from Elizabeth Ambrose to City Alderman Dan Cogan, dated June 2, 2011, and
31 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
WHEREAS, as explained in the Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown in drawings SK-01,
SK-20, SK-21, SK-21.a, SK-22, SK-22.a, and SK-23, the proposed project involves renovations and
an addition to the existing house, specifically including the following: (a) the addition of a wood
canopy over the main entrance; (b) a one-story addition with a full basement exposed at the rear
façade; (c) a reconstructed enclosed porch on the north façade and a new south entry porch on the
south façade; and (d) an open rear porch at the first level of the rear façade and brick-paved front,
side, and rear walks and patios, and
WHEREAS, as explained in the Description of Proposed Change(s), the following project
components may be considered in-kind repair and replacement and, as such, require no further
review by the ILPC: (a) replacement of the overhead garage door; (b) painting of wood elements on
the structure as specified; (c) restoration of damaged wood shutters, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
7/12/2011, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing and discussion among the commission members, the
ILPC adopted a Finding of Fact, stating that the circumstances of the application required further
time for additional study and information and thereby extending the time during which the ILPC
must act on the application to a period of up to 90 days, and
WHEREAS, the adopted Finding of Fact stated that the ILPC would seek consultation with
the City Attorney and the interpretation of the Building Commissioner, either in person or in
writing, and the ILPC has obtained this additional information; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period
of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 210 Kelvin Place, the
residence is historically significant for its association with Roy E. Halverson, vice president of
Donahue Halverson, a local firm that is still active today. The building is architecturally significant
as a representative example of a simply designed Colonial Revival style residence.
32 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
As stated in the application’s outline, Reasons for Change(s), the purpose of the renovations and
addition is to provide a covered main entry, to accommodate an enclosed “sun room” on the north
side, to provide an entry on the south side, and to provide additional space for use as a duplex.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or
demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work
will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural
significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of
the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural
value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the
historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in
accordance with Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this
determination, the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standard:
#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect
the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
With regard to Standard #9, as stated in the outline, Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown
in drawings SK-20 and SK-21.a, the proposed front canopy would not destroy historic materials that
characterize the property.
With regard to Standard #9, as stated in the outline, Description of Propose Change(s), and shown
in drawings SK-01, SK-21, SK-21.a, SK-22, SK-22.a, and SK-23, the proposed new addition, is
joined to the rear façade of 210 Kelvin Place and would not destroy historic materials that
characterize the property.
With regard to Standard #9, as stated in the outline, Description of Propose Change(s), and shown
in drawings SK-01, SK-21, SK-21.a, SK-22, SK-22.a, and SK-23, the proposed installation of brick
walkways and brick patios would not destroy historic materials that characterize the property
With regard to Standard #9, as stated in the outline, Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown
in drawings SK-20 and SK-21.a, the proposed wood canopy is differentiated from the old and is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of
the property and its environment.
With regard to Standard #9, as stated in the outline, Description of Proposed Change(s), and shown
in drawings SK-21 and SK-22, the reconstructed enclosed porch on the north elevation and the
entry porch on the south elevation are differentiated from the old and are compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
With regard to Standard # 9, as stated in the outline, Description of Proposed Change(s), and
shown in drawings SK-21, SK-21.a, SK-22, SK-22.a, and SK-23, the use of brick on the lower level
of the new addition and the use of shingles on the first level, as shown an SK-21.a and SK-22.a, and
33 of 34
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2011
the new retaining walls on either side of the exposed basement sufficiently differentiate the new
addition from the existing structure. Utilizing the grade change at the rear of the site, such that
much of the basement level is below grade, the new addition is compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the
proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural
significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it
further,
RESOLVED, that the ILPC determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under
Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 4-2-0
Yes
M. McGandy
S. Jones
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
No
S. Stein
N. Brcak
Abstain
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. by Chair S. Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
34 of 34